From the “this is going to quash our grant money gravy train” department. I never thought I’d see the day where science argues against open data requirements.

From an AGU press release:

In a letter submitted to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, AGU executive director/CEO Chris McEntee addressed concerns about recent policies mandating that EPA consider only publicly available scientific data and information when crafting rulemaking. In addition, AGU denounced reports that the agency instructed its employees to use scientifically inaccurate information about climate change when talking to the public.

On behalf of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its 60,000 scientist members, I am writing to express concerns about planned policy changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding transparency and accuracy of scientific information. We urge you to evaluate the unintended consequences of these policies and reconsider them.

Recent reports indicate that EPA is planning to implement new policies that would require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making. The legislation this policy is based on, the HONEST Act1, has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.2

AGU is fully committed and would be willing to provide assistance to efforts to ensure that scientific information is communicated openly with policymakers and the public. However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually.4 At a time when the Administration is proposing significant cuts to EPA funding, this policy would become an unnecessary burden on the agency and further hamstring its ability to protect public health and the environment. In general, to exclude vital scientific information from consideration would put our local communities’ health and well-being at risk.

Of additional concern to AGU are reports that EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world.5 The reported guidance requires EPA employees to

emphasize that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.” This is not only inaccurate, but also jeopardizes the ability of communities to respond appropriately to protect people’s health and well-being from challenges related to climate change.

AGU stands with the scientific community6 regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time. Failing to acknowledge and inform the public about this fact, as well as the ways in which the public can mitigate the effects and build resiliency is scientifically misleading, dangerous, and against the very mission of EPA. We as a nation need to ensure that we are addressing the pressing issues facing our communities by using and disseminating accurate, peer-reviewed and up-to-date scientific information.

AGU would welcome the opportunity to work with you on these critical issues and ensure that science can continue to appropriately inform decision-making and benefit the American public.

Respectfully,

Christine McEntee Executive Director/CEO

American Geophysical Union

1 H.R. 1430, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), passed the House on 29 March 2017.

Kristi- just stop. you are willfully IGNORE-ant of the collusion and corruption of the modern peer review process, not only in “climate” studies but across the scientific landscape, most notably the pharmaceutical field. Seriously. Just stop already with your obvious self-delusion. It is laborious to have to read a foregone conclusion every time you post. We want worthy opponents, not people masquerading around as intellectuals who can’t muster even the slightest amount of independent or critical thought. Suffers from groupthink, she does.

HonestLiberty,
“you are willfully IGNORE-ant of the collusion and corruption of the modern peer review process, not only in “climate” studies but across the scientific landscape, most notably the pharmaceutical field. ”

I don’t care about the pharmaceutical industry, I’m talking about climate science. The only incidents i know of regarding corruption of peer review were perpetrated by “skeptics,” resulting in resignation of editors or, in one instance, the publisher cancelling the journal.

You give me no evidence, I’m not giving you any. I’m not at all willfully ignorant – if you want to show me your evidence of collusion, go ahead. Just don’t give me the same old tired arguments that have been made a million times before.

Oh, yes, there’s more…
” It is laborious to have to read a foregone conclusion every time you post. We want worthy opponents, not people masquerading around as intellectuals who can’t muster even the slightest amount of independent or critical thought. Suffers from groupthink, she does.”

If you don’t consider me a “worthy opponent,” that’s OK – I’m not here to be an opponent, even if our views are opposed.

However, I believe you are quite mistaken about the “groupthink” idea. I’m not the one hanging out on the internet or elsewhere with people who think as I do, nor do I EVER do so, nor have I don’t so in 20 years. I didn’t see Gore’s movie or read his book, but I know enough of what he’s done to despise him and think him a great fool. I learn what “alarmists” supposedly say from people like you.

So, say what you want. I know you have no idea what you are talking about. Others can make up their own minds.

“I don’t care about the pharmaceutical industry, I’m talking about climate science. The only incidents i know of regarding corruption of peer review were perpetrated by “skeptics,” resulting in resignation of editors or, in one instance, the publisher cancelling the journal.

You give me no evidence, ”

SURPRISE, SURPRISE, …Kristi, ……. of course it is the only incidents regarding the “culture of corruption” of peer review process that you will publicly admit to knowing, hearing or reading about.

Your exercising of an “inherited survival trait” doesn’t surprise me in the least.

“DUH”, iffen I cited you 100 actual, factual, unquestionable incidences of INTENTIONAl corruption of peer review processes directly associated with climate, weather and/or climate science, ….. I am absolutely sure that you would do one (1) of two (2) things:

(1) ignore my posted information, and if questioned about it, claim you never seen it to read it:

(2) avert your eyes and your mind to the factual information contained within my posting and then claim that they were nothing more than a REPEAT of ….. “the same old tired arguments that have been made a million times before”.

Sure nuff, ….. Kristi, ……. whenever you can’t support your beliefs, …… just head for the “roundhouse” because no one can “corner” you there.

If the information is public there will be a much more robust “peer” review. Instead of the self appointed self important pinheads that sit around congratulating them self’s on their superior intellect and ability to control the message there will actually be review by people who don’t care about titles and accolades but actually care about truth and scientific facts not social justice induced manipulations.

You have to understand that climate scientists are peerless. To each his/her own specialty where no challenge is entertained.

The clear message from the AGU is that there is an ongoing calamitous disaster unfolding which they can detect, and the proofs of it are in part, secret and therefore not shareable. Peers trust each other so whatever one says, it is taken in good faith that it is based on sound evidence and analysis, provided of course that it supports the pre-determined position the AGU took from the beginning.

It is not peer review per se that is a problem, it is that the review process has been captured by certain actors who want to prevent certain findings and observations from entering the record. The corruptions possible through publication capture are far greater than the corruptions of particular branches of science, which stand to be easily exposed.

The State capture of the South African government by the Gupta family will serve for generations as an example of what happens once the levers that direct funding are controlled by one of, or a group of, the recipients.

The corruption of the peer review process as evidence in the Climategate emails is paralleled by the capture of the AGU leadership, now a slave to the putative ‘consensus’. The emerging consensus about the AGU is that they are not so much geophysical as geopolitical. They can do that if they wish, but they cannot simultaneously claim to be a leading light on any scientific matters.

Respect and credibility are earned, not given. The claim for detectability of human influence on the climate over background variability is built on a bedrock of logical aerogel. You can almost feel it, almost see it. It is as if it is really there in some form. Probably.

What am I missing here?
1.I don’t see that requiring scientific information to be publicly available changes the current peer review process in any way.
2. How is it implementing a secret science policy to make the scientific research public?

My thoughts exactly. “policies mandating that EPA consider only publicly available scientific data and information” are “a secret science policy”??????? Someone in the AGU has seriously lost it. I hope that there are many AGU members up in arms about this, and that they can sweep away the people promoting this unscientific idiocy.

The peer review process is not affected at all by the new EPA rules so the AGU complaining about it is ridiculous.

The EPA is implementing a “Non”-Secret Science policy. It’s hard to believe that the AGU thinks it is a good idea to keep some public policy science away from the public.

The AGU should point out specific instances where it would be a good thing to keep the public in the dark about science policies that affect their lives. In a country governed by the votes of private citizens, the more information available to them, the better.

Other than personal identification information, what science information is it that the AGU wants to hide from the general public?

Steve Ta ==> How is requiring hypothesis’, methods, data, data analysis, and conclusions to be open and available to all a “secret science policy”? The AGU is not correct in claiming this and neither are you.

Since deliberate obtuseness seems to be ruling this thread from the start – Gary’s comment was meant to indicate how the peer review process has been corrupted into the ‘crony review’ process – see Caligula Jones’ post below.

Anyone who heads up a ‘Scientific’ organization and argues against the scientific method needs to go!
Christine McEntee, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union needs to resign immediately.

I’m no longer a member of the AGU, but all current members who consider themselves to be scientists should immediately call for the resignation of this fraud.

“ With that statement Christine McEntee demonstrates that she has no understanding of the scientific method, has no concept of “data,” and that she’s not a scientist at all.”

It is true what you say, …… but it matters not because, …… there is currently about 50.7 million students enrolled/attending US public elementary and secondary schools, ….. and the millions that are currently attending college, ……. that are being taught, nurtured and/or “brainwashed’ into believing that Christine McEntee et el are “truth talkers” that must be believed.

the gold standard of academic achievement.
===========
the gold standard is replication. peer review simply means that the results have been proof-read. Unfortunately too many academics mistake ‘proof-read’ for ‘proven’.

Well, academic achievement is not necessarily science, and is frequently determined by who is willing to play ball, and the people running the show (administrators) often do not know what they are talking about…

…maybe this is a case of accidentally speaking truth while trying to tell a lie.

I’ve sort of lost and value I once had for “peer review” after it became very clear from the ClimateGate emails that it had devolved into “pal review”.

I want predictions with numbers attached! So Kristi, what are your predictions for the next 20 years? Warmer, colder or same? I will only make one prediction and that is that CO2 will continue to increase at roughly 1 PPM per year as measured at Mauna Loa.

According to the IPCC we should be 0.5-1.5 C warmer and the cyclical scientists are saying 0.25-1.0 C colder. They can’t both be correct but they both could be wrong! Currently I”m leaning heavily towards Dr Easterbrook’s predictions because he’s got the record for the longest correct call on climate.

I was just about to say something similar.
The proposed EPA policy of requiring transparency in science, that only papers be considered for policy making IF ALL the DATA contained within them is made a matter of Public Record only serves to keep Science reproducible OPEN and HONIST. There is no “Secret Science Policy” involved, only an “Open Science Policy” now being required by Mr. Pruitt’s EPA.
…
I’m sorry AGU but you have your information backwards.

The Democrats’ modus operendi has always been to do in private the opposite of their public claims. And then rely on a compliant mainstream media to feed manure to the people and keep them in the dark.

“ The Democrats’ modus operendi has always been to do in private the opposite of their public claims. And then rely on a compliant mainstream media to feed manure to the people and keep them in the dark.”

“YUP”, for past decades and decades the Democrats’ have been the uncontested experts at “mushroom” farming.

Same here. It appears to be a deliberate attempt by the AGU to make people think that a”secret science ” policy is being introduced rather than being done away with. Hard to believe that AGU members don’t revolt against their leadership.
Chronic anti-science at the top of the AGU. Very disappointing and concerning. Pruitt should use this to call them out very publicly.

After 9/11, was the Patriot Act really patriotic in its erosion of individual liberties?
No.

This is Washington, DC-speak. They want to operate in secrecy. And where they can’t they want a complicit mainstream media to keep the public uniformed and/or confused about what they are doing.
Hence, not secret means “secret” if we say it is so.

Keep this also in mind. Congress is the People’s voice in DC. The Deep State hates that,

That is, they hate that the framers built a system whereby a rapidly changing Congress can check the other two branches. The Deep State wants an Imperial Presidency, a neutered Congress, and an SJW activist judiciary. The deep state just never anticipated a non-Deep State President would ever be elected. The deep state wanted a Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.

They hate that Obama had to bypass the treaty ratification required by the Constitution. SO he decided to bypass the Senate with the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear deal. Both were indeed treaties.

Failing to acknowledge and inform the public about this fact, as well as the ways in which the public can mitigate the effects and build resiliency is scientifically misleading, dangerous, and against the very mission of EPA.

I think you have it backwards. The “secret science” policy is the one Pruitt wants to implement, and it would supposedly come at a cost (due to bureaucratic red tape, I believe). Pretty broad estimate there!

Complete garbage Kristi – you’ve really got to pay attention to what your side has been doing for the last thirty years. For God’s sake, Michael Man STILL hasn’t turned over his Virginia e-mails – and, Gosh-be-darned – the last two governors have sworn to keep them secret.
Jeez. Talk about getting it backwards.

Joel, she is a liar. Plain and simple. Either that or she suffers from a serious case of cognitive dissonance, aka doublethink. At some point the phrase “don’t feed the trolls” will necessarily apply to her.

Kristi–the “secret science” policy is the one that Pruitt has reversed, gotten rid of, replaced by “open and reproducible science.” To say he is trying to implement “secret science” is the purest nonsense I have read for quite a while. Please look it up!

I think you have it backwards. The “secret science” policy is the one Pruitt wants to implement, and it would supposedly come at a cost (due to bureaucratic red tape, I believe). Pretty broad estimate there!

Someone has already mentioned Mann’s UVa emails. If I’m not mistaken, all we know about his Penn State climate emails are from Climate Gate. (Ever hear of it? That’s where a bunch of people tried to avoid a legal FOIA request. Someone made public the stuff they tried to hide. Some of the email exchanges involved your favorite Nobel Laureate.)
Yet they’d spend trillions of dollars based on a theory based on data and methods they try to hide.

PS Has Mann turned his stuff over yet in the “discovery” part of his various lawsuits?

Kristi, you have it backwards. It’s the “secret science” that this new policy ELIMINATES. And what’s worse is you either know it (ie are lying) or don’t (ie are ignorant). I know which I suspect to be the case.

Kristi ==> You sure are stirring the pot on this post. You are correct — Pruit is pushing the “Secret Science” policy – it is intended to STOP the practice of EPA using science results that are being kept secret — unpublished and unavailable data. In other words, it is an ANTI-Secret-Science policy — an effort to end the use of secret science to support new EPA policies.
It will cost money — money well spent (five million is a drop in the bucket).
It is a Good Thing.

Kristi: Are you a ghost writer for this McEntee person? ‘Cause her letter looks like something you would write. Some of it comes straight outta the IPCC policy statements (future certain, past keeps changing), you know, the ones contradicted by the IPCC reports that acknowledge uncertainty. McEntee defends “secret science” by projecting it onto the open science policy proposed, sure you didn’t write it? Peer review is the gold standard, regardless of debunking (so long as we ignore the non-peers)? Sounds so familiar….. Do you wonder why we are never impressed with your appeals to authority like someone on the AGU letterhead who writes as badly as you?

I’ll tell you what – when taxpayer (The public) dollars are used to pay for “studies”, any subsequent findings had damn well better be accessible to the public. And if the findings are to be used for policy decisions, the so called science, and its respective data, had damn well better be available to the public for scrutiny. And if a single scientist (single – as in (1), one) determines that the findings are specious or wrong, then we’d better start from square one, and rethink it.
I think the EPA should be shut down after Mr. Pruitt repeals everything the previous 4 administrations invoked. I like clean air, clean water, and clean living conditions as much as the next guy. But the EPA is NO longer about these concerns.

Christine McEntee, I have two words for you: replication crisis. Science is in bad shape when it is widely acknowledged that the majority of published research findings are false. When reproduction is attempted, it has been found that a large percent of the time the original scientists can’t even duplicate their own experimental results.

Arguing against open data is shooting yourself in the foot, with artillery.

If science is to regain its credibility, it has to clean up its house. Embracing open data is one obvious starting point. Your arguments against that sound entitled and out of touch.

Yeah. Some EPA rules, or proposed rules, are based on dodgy “science”, like the Clean Power Plan or the PM2.5 regulations. Both are dreadfully expensive to implement, and doing something as discreditable as the DDT rule would eliminate any credibility the EPA has left.

Agree commie Bob. It is hard to believe that AGU would be against open, transparent science and data as the basis for decision making. Sounds to me that they think this requirement would probably eliminate many of the AGU’s scientists who have upheld the global warming/climate change scam over all these years in spite of scientific findings and data that does not support catastrophic global warming. A very good thing I think.
I hope all government funded research must meet the same requirements that EPA is implementing. How can competent and rational scientists be against greater openness and transparency in their work? Their complaints tell us much about AGU scientific leadership and what it is like.

What’s conspicuous by its absence is any reference to definitive evidence that further increases in CO2 will have any effect on average global temperatures. Evidence that humans cause most of the increasing CO2 is missing as well.

Chic:
‘What’s conspicuous by its absence is any reference to definitive evidence that further increases in CO2 will have any effect on average global temperatures. Evidence that humans cause most of the increasing CO2 is missing as well.”

This is not the place to provide evidence. If Pruitt doesn’t believe, or doesn’t want to believe, the AGU isn’t going to convince him in a letter. The veracity of AGW is not the issue here.

There is certainly plenty of evidence for these things, but evidence doesn’t seem to matter. Maybe it’s the “definitive” problem – people won’t believe without scientific “proof.” Science is by its nature and philosophy NEVER definitive. It doesn’t “prove” things, for that is a dead end. It is a fundamental tenet of science that it is always open to being falsified.

The whole issue with CAGW theory is that it is neither provable nor wholly disprovable. As such it’s very like the principles that religions are based on. If it were something that could be proved or disproved, the matter would have been settled years ago.

Though, I think the weight of evidence goes against it. Especially the ‘adjustments’ to temperature data, the fact that warming commenced before CO2 increased, that the supposed ‘amplifying feedbacks’ violate the principles of stable system design, are just a few reasons.

Then again, judge its promoters by their track record. How many times have they been wrong on similar or related matters? Sea level rise? <3mm per year and NOT increasing. Ocean acidification? Oceans are alkaline, not acid. (Adding acid to alkali does not make acid, by the way. Chemistry 101.)

Oh, but the veracity of AGW is indeed, in no small part, the issue here. Because had the so-called “science” that allegedly supports this “human-induced climate catastrophe” nonsense been open and transparent from the beginning, it wouldn’t have survived three years much less three decades.

It’s classic projection that the Eco-Fascists call the non-believers “anti-science.” Classic projection. If there’s anything that is “anti-science,” it is attempting to hide your supposed “science” behind closed doors, and expose it ONLY to your “group think” buddies that all march the same goose-step.

Kristi, there’s the problem for you. Pruett, like many of us, “doesn’t believe” because we haven’t been given sufficient evidence that there’s a problem. The “proof” of AGW was never there in the first place. Don’t expect us to act on faith that climate models will somehow be validated or eventually correct themselves.

…the AGU isn’t going to convince him in a letter.

If I wanted to be convincing, I would reference something more scientific than a position statement.

In Kristi’s mind, the fact that the world has warmed and that CO2 has gone up is the only “evidence” that matters.
To her this conclusively proves that CO2 and CO2 alone is the only thing that affects climate and anyone who disagrees with her is anti-science and/or in the pay of big oil.

Kristi ==> The real problem is that scientists who rely on computer models don’t want to open up their programming to everyone. That way everyone will know what is parameterized and what is based on algorithms, and what is based on physics. In other words, the world will get to see how much they know and how much they simply guess at. No scientist would probably want that unless they were knowledgeable enough to explain everything contained in their model.

The real issue here is that models are NOT physical reality. in order to achieve reproducibility, you must use physical measurements. You just can’t copy code and data to another computer and say you reproduced your hypothesis. In the long run, this will remove models from preeminence in studies and this is the real reason for “secret science”. Viva real physical science!

“It is a fundamental tenet of science that it is always open to being falsified.”

putting aside that CAGW as it currently stands is unfalsifiable as its proponents claim any and all things as proof even when they contradict other things that they claim as proof. Part of being open to being falsified is having the data and methods available for attempts at replication. Hiding the data and methods (secret science) works to prevent falsification. By blocking secret science, this is actually a step towards that fundamental tenet of science. If you truly believed in that fundamental tenet of science you’d be applauding this move. That you naysay it instead proves that you don’t care about science you only care about support your side of the political debate.

Krist, if the AGU comes out with data and conclusions that are reproducible via experimentation and observation, then it is science that Mr. Pruitt will accept. Unfortunately that is something that is missing from almost all climate science. Yet here you are, all upset because the people that make policy based on science are actually requiring science in order for anything to effect policy in the future.

It is rather ironic that you’re arguing against science where policy is concerned…

@ Kristi, ” … Propaganda, is by its nature and philosophy NEVER definitive. It doesn’t “prove” things, for that is a dead end. It is a fundamental tenet of propaganda that it is always open to being falsified. …”

Agreed. And that is why the Eco-Fascists always resist transparency, the disclosure of data and methods, and the like. Because their so-called “science” is a steaming pile of crap, and they know it won’t withstand scrutiny.

Isn’t this the organisation that arbitrarily endorses the concept of AGW without consulting it’s members?

Sorry if it’s not, but if it isn’t, it’s one of the few.

As for this: “4 At a time when the Administration is proposing significant cuts to EPA funding, this policy would become an unnecessary burden on the agency and further hamstring its ability to protect public health and the environment.”

Sorry luv, like the rest of us, you’re just going to have to work harder. It’s called austerity in the UK and is a result of western governments screwing up the world’s finances.

Thankfully, Trump seems to have a better idea of how a countries economy works, that the rest of the westernised governments put together. I have maintained for 4 years that politicians shouldn’t be let loose on their own household budgets, never mind that of a country. A businessman is far better placed to run what is just a large, profit generating organisation.

No profit, you go bust. Lots of profit, you can afford health and welfare.

On behalf of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its 60,000 scientist members…

And again, she speaks on behalf of all AGU members without their consent. I am quite certain she did not ask the membership to endorse her statement. Organizations like AGU, AMS, AAAS, etc have gotten into the role of virtue signalers big time since President Trump’s election. This is all driven by the permanent executive staffs. They have arrogance to “speak on behalf” of the membership when they weren’t even elected by them. Kinda like the European Union.

Absolutely spot on MM. In the UK we refer to this as the democratic deficit. The EU – and particularly the EC (the unelected commissioners) – absolutely ABHOR democracy because it keeps presenting them with dilemmas they would much rather avoid. The letter from the AGU is not only shocking, it is profoundly embarrassing. Will no rank-and-file AGU members begin a #notinmyname type protest?

The Eco-Fascists have been working long and hard to get “party members” installed in leadership positions in all the “scientific” organizations so that they can co-opt their “message” and abuse their status in EXACTLY this fashion.

Hot Scot:
“Isn’t this the organisation that arbitrarily endorses the concept of AGW without consulting it’s members?”

No.

“AGU has a process for creating, updating, and reaffirming position statements. This process involves establishing a position statement expert panel, led by a Chair, composed of 10-15 experts identified by the AGU Position Statement Task Force, AGU Council, and AGU membership. Draft statements are provided to AGU membership for comment. After reviewing and addressing member comments, statements are reviewed by the Position Statement Task Force, Council, and AGU Board.”https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/agu-position-statements/policy-on-agus-role-in-advocacy-on-public-issues/

I’m quite sure the EPA itself has numerous published statements on how it conducts itself yet it has become public enemy number one. It’s taken a new administration to lift the lid on it’s questionable methods and objectives.

We must also bear in mind that a huge number of the AGU’s membership are employed by the EPA, so as with many ‘old school tie’ organisation, the last thing they want to do is rock the boat. Political machinations once again.

I’m also led to believe a great many of its members signed the Oregon petition. Why would they do that and, with no material change in the evidence, change their minds and support not only the concept of wholly human derived global warming, but the concept that the EPA’s science should somehow be remote from every reputable science reliant organisation, and remain secret. After all, the EPA’s brief, as far as I understand it, was to ensure America’s air and water quality were improved. Why should it need to keep it’s science secret when it’s pursuing that entirely noble objective?

And that final point of course is the crux of the matter. If one asked every member of the AGU confidentially if they thought secret science is credible, they would all answer no.

And I’m sure the “Task Force” and the “Council’ are all loaded with the “like-minded” people to ensure they get the “right” so-called “experts” on the “panel.” Note the “membership” is LAST on the “list,” revealing its being a token non-factor in creating “position statements.”

And why does a supposedly “scientific” organization need to put forth “position statements” anyway? They are blatantly political, and an obvious attempt to substitute the voice of a chosen subset of “experts” for that of the membership at large, so as to control the “message” and hide any discourse. In other words, anything BUT “scientific.”

MarkW – of course background is relevant. Or do you hire a line cook who has an interest in medicine to remove your appendix?

Paul Courtney – nah, I could go off to a remote cabin and post continuously for a month, I wouldn’t come close to Mark’s trolling attacks (always without supporting links) on anyone who believes AGW is real.

“Recent reports indicate that EPA is planning to implement new policies that would require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making. ”

Does the AGU state anywhere why using data that is NOT publicly available is considered best practice in either science or science based policy making.

Would they be pro scientific studies that were not in line with their stated position if the data was not publicly available and not from an AGU approved journal?

“when considering science in rule-making.” They may also consider witchcraft in rule-making, like the famous definition of “navigable waters”. By the way, they refused to pay damages for poisoning Animas river, citing a sovereign status. No longer “we the people”, now we have “we the sovereign institution”.

Mike,
One point is, whether or not data is accessible to the public is not in any way relevant to whether research is appropriate, valuable and informative in policy-making.

Another is that the feds are interfering in science, which is already addressing issues of transparency.

A third point is that some studies (particularly in health and medicine) use data that are confidential, and couldn’t be made available to the public. If these studies can’t be used in the process of EPA policymaking, the agency will not be as informed as it could be.

Just because data aren’t shared with the public does not mean they aren’t shared with other scientists for the purposes of experimental reproduction or other research. That is appropriate. However, I’m not sure it’s always a good thing to make it freely available to the public. Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way. The blogosphere picks it up, spreading misinformation that has the gloss of science, but without without being grounded in the standards, expertise and context of true scientific research. The proliferation of this pseudo-science has abetted the idea among some that science is easy (and easily corrupted). It has also strengthened the “skeptic” movement by suggesting there are many alternative explanations for climate change, when in reality these ideas have already been thoroughly studied and either debunked or integrated into AGW theory. The present and past relationship between the sun and climate, for example, has been extensively studied, as has that between temperature and CO2. (There are some things I’ve heard so many times from skeptics that I’ve believed them myself, only to find out recently that I’ve been misled, too.)

All this freely available data has, in other words, led to a sub-culture of pseudo-science that is successfully competing with real science for the public’s trust. This is not good for the nation, since it’s resulting in the spread misinformation. Someone can be brilliant, and have extensive expertise in one scientific field but still not be able to understand, absorb and assimilate the theory and research in another field, much less succeed in making breakthrough observations in it. Even scientists within the broad, interdisciplinary field of climate science don’t understand each others’ research. This is expected when a theory is validated on so many fronts – that’s why it’s a theory, and not a hypothesis.

Its called ‘data on file’ and its data that has not been published and its dodgy data to say the least. That’s why ALL trial data should be made available because it allows the administrators of agencies or industries to determine the safety or effectiveness of the trial in question. However, because the data has not been published, the company in question does not have to release it when requested and it simply gathers dust in some back room, somewhere. That’s ‘secret science’ in action.

The only ‘pseudoscience’ I see is the science that has not followed the scientific method and the peer review process mess that has allowed the likes of Mann and Jones to get away with their lies.

Kristi: ‘Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way.’
Yes, Al Gore/M. Mann has already proven that out of any question.

It has also strengthened the “skeptic” movement by suggesting there are many alternative explanations for climate change, when in reality these ideas have already been thoroughly studied and either debunked or integrated into AGW theory. The present and past relationship between the sun and climate, for example, has been extensively studied, as has that between temperature and CO2.

So sayeth the true believer.

Skeptics have completely debunked your supposed debunkers.

The sun and not CO2 drives climate change. It’s not just an alternative. It’s the real deal.

” Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way. ”

I agree with this, but its the warmists who have completely misinterpreted the data, and have shown nothing but fervor in interpreting data in a particular [one-sided] way.

Hypothesis vs. Theory
Diffen › English Language › Grammar › Words
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
“Rapunzel”…………sorry “Dame Gothel” ………….sorry Kristi …………Does your “Ivory Tower” have an escape hatch ?
“Even scientists within the broad, interdisciplinary field of climate science don’t understand each others’ research. This is expected when a theory is validated on so many fronts – that’s why it’s a theory, and not a hypothesis.”
REALLY ? So they CAN’T UNDERSTAND IT ….OR ONE ANOTHER ….and that makes it CORRECT ?
NO ! That makes it RUBBISH !
THEORY……..VERIFIED ( TRUE and PROVEN ),backed by EVIDENCE , Unified EXPLANATION !
HYPOTHESIS……..suggested POSSIBLE OUTCOME……..i.e. NONE OF THE ABOVE !!
That makes AGW or CAGW EVEN LESS THAN A HYPOTHESIS…….. let alone a THEORY !

” whether or not data is accessible to the public is not in any way relevant to whether research is appropriate, valuable and informative in policy-making.”

Science that cannot be reproduced may not be reliable and therefore may be detrimental to policy making

“Just because data aren’t shared with the public does not mean they aren’t shared with other scientists for the purposes of experimental reproduction or other research.”

That’s exactly what it means …. Phil Jones “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”
Take the corp that you envision as the boogey monster, they pay to have a study produced, they only share the data with scientists who have a vested interest in the outcome The study cant be challenged because their data is PRIVATE …… Kristi approves

” However, I’m not sure it’s always a good thing to make it freely available to the public. Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way.”

Kristi “Data are dangerous” wow just wow

….. followed by thoughts of conspiracy , conflating blogs with scientific studies as if the EPA is suggesting using blogs for policy, projecting your gullibility onto others “only to find out recently that I’ve been misled, too.)”

” Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way. ”

This is a pearl of a sentence, thank you for the good laugh!!

I do not think that climate science is more difficult to understand then the theory of relativity.
Einstein said once about 100 scientists trying to prove him wrong: “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
Science does not run by consensus.

Kristi ==> Point 1 – A typical liberal viewpoint. The unwashed are too stupid to properly understand and judge the science they have paid for. Congratulations – you are a liberal socialist.

Point 2 – The EPA is the entity using the science. Therefore, they are the sole arbiters of what they will accept as “science” regardless of what “science” is doing elsewhere to address transparency.

Point 3 – See point 2. Most health and medicine should be more transparent as you claim in Point 2 regardless of confidentiality. If a company want to keep their study secret, so be it, it is their decision. However, they will know ahead of time that it won’t be accepted as gospel by the EPA and will carry little weight.

“Data are dangerous in the hands” of the unwashed, right? See Point 1. There is your liberal bias poking up again. Deplorables just can’t be trusted can they?

Your very assertion that someone can know a lot in one field but not another applies very well to climate. One of the most glaring examples are climate scientists who don’t publish measurement error analysis or obviously have little or no background in statistical analysis of data. Of course if you’re using computer models there aren’t any measurement errors, right? That is why transparency is so important. You have unintentionally contradicted your own hypothesis.

“However, I’m not sure it’s always a good thing to make it freely available to the public. Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way”

In other words, put your faith in the high priests of your CAGW religion. No thanks. Data freely available means that the charlatans “who don’t know how to interpret them” can be publically countered and any one with the ability to think for themselves can look at the data and make an informed decision about who is right and who is wrong. Data kept in secret means that the charlatans can pass themselves off as the High Priests that people like you will trust implicitly and countering those charlatans becomes harder because the data isn’t available to show those charlatans for what they really are. Hidden Data that people are expected to trust blindly is what is truly dangerous.

A waste of time and piling on, but…. Kristi, when an agency reviews data that is not accessible to the public, must it remain “not accessible”? Why can’t it then be released? I realize these great tree-ring gatherers et al must make a living, but isn’t saving the planet too important? BTW, I am sorry I called you a concern tr0ll- sorry to the concern tr0lls, that is. Your “data is dangerous” point is kookoo for coco puffs territory, my girl.

Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way.

Who sets the rules how to interprete them?
Who sets the rules that they shall not be interpreted in a particular way?
One of the most important priciples in science istThesis – Antithesis – Synthesis
You have never heard of that, I presume. Instead, you want to set some rules ad libitum to nip in the bud opinions contrary those of mainstream science you seem so fond of. That isn’t just bad. It is vicious.

“Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way.”

I can’t believe you just said that.

“The blogosphere picks it up, spreading misinformation that has the gloss of science, but without without being grounded in the standards, expertise and context of true scientific research.”

I am a reliability engineer with nearly 40 years experience, including a lot of statistics, data analysis and probability theory. I can examine data and understand data presentations on any number of topics. Don’t assume we’re all too stupid to know the difference. I long ago recognized which side of the AGW debate behaves far more scientifically and it isn’t, apparently, the one you are on.

“AGU stands with the scientific community regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities” AND “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”, are not contradictory statements.

Nobody denies that climate change is occurring. There is still strong debate in the broader scientific community about whether or not humans are responsible for more than 50% of the climate change observed. That said, there are still very clear gaps remaining in our understanding of the human impact and even bigger gaps in our knowledge of what to do about it.

These are clearly not contradictory statements. Me thinks the AGU doth protest too much, and in the process, looks duplicitous.

Based on this https://sites.agu.org/leadership/leader/christine-w-mcentee/ it appears that Christine McEntee is a career administrator with little or no background in science. Her “expertise” is managing change in large organizations. I am sure the AGU is paying her a bundle. This is what your dues are used for.

That explains it. It is written like the author was working from talking points without any real knowledge of the issues, but a great understanding of the agenda to keep the money flowing to the AGU and its members

All of these large, scientific organizations (AGU, AMS, AAAS, APS, etc) have big. full-time executive staffs and very few of them are scientists. They administer the day-to-day affairs of the organizations and their extensive publishing interests. There is also little oversight from the elected officials who are directly responsible to the membership. The official’s terms are usually one to three years, but the permanent staff stays employed for years on end, entrenched and salaried. They have grown fat and smug, like embedded ticks.

THAT’S your response? Attack the woman who wrote the letter and her title, background, etc.? Isn’t that just a bit petty, or desperate or something? She’s still writing on behalf of the organization. Of course there are clerical staff and admin and so forth! Naturally they aren’t scientists. Sheesh.

Then there’s M. Mann’s very personal attack of Judith Curry “she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.”

Then there’s threats of violence, Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”

I think we sceptics are entitled to snigger at bureaucrats running a scientific organisation. I mean, it’s hardly an official position, a published, ‘scientific’ criticism, or an expression of physical violence.

MarkW – nope. I read roughly 1 WUWT article out of 5. Without exception I’ll find 10 or more comments by you on each article I read, never with a link. Now, perhaps you post one link every 1000 posts, but that still makes you primarily a troll.

And when you are painted into a corner, you just slink away, rather than try to defend your position. For example, a recent article about battery life of EVs, which you claimed was not good, and that older batteries had no use as grid backup. I posted data from actual Tesla owners showing that after 250,000 km, battery life was still above 90%. Meaning batteries do not need to be replaced very often, and that used batteries can be used for grid storage – which negates the criticisms you posted.

If I were Pruitt, I’d hand this note to staff with a question, “Can someone tell me exactly what she/AGU is objecting to?”

The “gold standard” paragraph seems to say “If it’s been peer reviewed, that’s good enough. Trust us, because we are PEERS and we know peer-review when we see it. We don’t gotta show you no steenkin’ data”

The rest of the letter is standard appeal-to-authority BS.

The laugh-out-loud line is the CBO estimate that complying with the new open-data policy “would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually”. So AGU is saying the annual cost might be somewhere between $1 and $250 million, so let’s call that “about $125 +/- 125 million”.

I would call that “consistent with” every other climate-change projection, and worth just as much as the paper it’s printed on.

I can’t figure out how McEntee (or her writer(s)) came up with the $125.5 +/- $124.5 million.

McEntee writes: “The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million
annually.” (4)

BUT her reference (4), from the CBO, says: “Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that EPA would spend $250 million annually over the next few years to ensure the transparency of information and data supporting some covered actions.”

McEntee had the entire AGU complex available to review her letter; A review of an incompetent, by incompetent peers, yields results that should be characterized as questionable … whether from a figurehead letter or from a scientific study.

[And, as a side note about the CBO; $250,000,000 (over the next few (three) years) would be reflective of 6,000 full time GS12 employees, incl benefits. The fact that the CBO idiots will state that this policy would require the equivalent of 6,000 FTE bureaucrats shows that the Washington DC bureaucracy is really fucked up.]

It seems to me that the arguments in the letter are actually endorsing the new policy of getting rid of the secret science that has been in use the past 8 years. Methinks that the author does not have a clue.

The standard at FDA is clearly beyond the so called “gold standard” of peer review. If it stopped there the average cost of a new drug getting through full scientific approval would not be $500 million in the U.S. and there would be a whole lot more dead people around.

Exactly what vital data would have to be excluded from public view aside from perhaps names of their experimental rats? That is total BS. I would love to hear a single specific example. Copywrite, proprietary etc., is not an excuse if it was funded by taxpayer dollars or being used for government policy either……

The AGU only supports peer-review when they pick the peers and only gives the carefully selected peers the data they want to give them. Peer-review has “evolved” since I was a peer-reviewer – or perhaps devolved is a better word in this case.

” 1) The legislation this policy is based on, the HONEST Act, has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.”

AGU has a very odd idea regarding what passes for “informed decision-making”

“2) However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information. ”

Plus, AGU would lose funds derived from modern societies extreme pressure for researchers to publish regardless of research quality and actual findings.

Force researchers to release all data, code, calculations and observations might cause quite a few researchers to get laughed out of town.

“3) The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually. At a time when the Administration is proposing significant cuts to EPA funding, this policy would become an unnecessary burden on the agency and further hamstring its ability to protect public health and the environment.”

Apparently the AGU is unable to portray any situation in a positive light.
Somehow, AGU overlooks EPA’s improved efficiency because they would be dealing with complete research.

N.B., AGU’s reference to EPA’s open and complete science requirement as “secret science”; none of which would be secret, at all.

One would have expected AGU to call research that refused to release all necessary or relevant research “secret science”. Instead, AGU appears to have it posterior backwards.

“4) Of additional concern to AGU are reports that EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world. The reported guidance requires EPA employees to emphasize that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.” This is not only inaccurate, but also jeopardizes the ability of communities to respond appropriately to protect people’s health and well-being from challenges related to climate change.

AGU stands with the scientific community regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities. The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time. ”

“contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists” and “the data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time.” is an excellent of an oxymoron.

Robust scientific data is strong and growing is a direct AGU admission that climate science is not settled!
Science is never dependent upon “consensus”, nor can science advance when a “consensus” rules and overrules research.

In one letter to Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator, the AGU admits:
A) climate science is not settled,
B) that the AGU stands foursquare for anti-scientific practice and beliefs
C) that AGU willfully and perhaps maliciously misinterprets open science practices as “secret science”
D) that AGU much prefers government use unproved, unreplicated, undocumented research for making decisions.

Defund all government grants and awards going AGU or AGU members until they can be independently reviewed.

“The legislation this policy is based on . . . has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.”

What struck me about this statement was its sheer arrogance. Scientific organizations should not presume they are some kind of authority on what kind of evidence is appropriate for “informed” decision-making. They aren’t decisionmakers, and in a democracy, the idea that technocrats should be making policy based on evidence shielded from the public is offensive.

What they really mean is that they want politicians and agencies to listen to them, but they don’t think it necessary that their work be subjected to public scrutiny in exchange for the privileged position of having the politician’s or agency’s ear. To put to differently, they presume that they are the appropriate actors to “inform” the decisionmakers, but at the same time they don’t think that the public needs to be informed of the scientific evidence behind the information they provide. Everyone should just trust them because they are scientists.

You wonder how well this kind of argument would go over in a courtroom, for example. Should a forensic expert be able to testify as to conclusions or opinions formed by an analysis of evidence not offered to the defendant? Let’s say the government has a secret algorithm to hack into a cell phone of a defendant, and uses it to offer evidence of a confession or a video of the crime being committed, but argues that the algorithm used ought not be given to the defendant to see if it has any flaws, because to do so would threaten national security. Certainly you could argue that preventing such evidence from being admitted at trial would “exclude data vital to informed decision-making,” but it would also undercut public faith in the prosecution and any resulting guilty verdict, and certainly hurt the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

“only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making”

You don’t base global policy response to self proclaimed highest threat to the planet on anything less than this. The letter needs to be enshrined for future posterity to view in a glass vault in the museum of science policy distortion by advocacy groups.

“AGU would welcome the opportunity to work with you on these critical issues and ensure that science can continue to appropriately inform decision-making and benefit the American public.”

Mr. Pruitt should accept this offer and request that AHU establish guidelines for their members to comply with the new requirement. The data should be collected, organized, and handled in ways that insure public availability of any part that is pertinent to the result and proposed policy but any names or addresses or such non-essential data can be declared not public.

Recent reports indicate that EPA is planning to implement new policies that would require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making.

By all means use private data in privately funded corporate research. Use the results for profit. Just don’t put those papers into the public domain…at all.

The other thing science must do is be reproducible and an argument of “get your own data” really doesn’t cut it for the real world.

One of the problems with Pons and Fleischmann is they didn’t follow proper peer review. They announced with a big press release, not in a recognized journal, and resisted public documentation of their procedure. Only later, under intense pressure, did they publish something approaching proper peer review standards.

Science, done right, offers forgiveness for being in error if you’re open with your work and learn from mistakes.

having re read the following
” The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually.”

i now believe as this is a publicly available letter the above was deliberately inserted to confuse anyone that has a passing glance at the letter. it gives the opposite impression to the intention of the new proposal. typical climate science duplicity.

I was a member of AGU for many years. I resigned after the Peter Gleick affair, when they refused to kick him out. Sent a letter detailing my grievances; never received a reply. A very ethical organization, whose chair of their Task Force on Scientific Ethics admitted that he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses.

It’s laugh out loud funny that the CBO is saying that EPA will go beyond what the law requires and spend money to promote the distribution of science and that the AGU, instead of saying that EPA should stay in its lane and not spend the money, uses that excess spending as a constant of the universe and says the waste of money justifies not requiring the public availability of data.

“Although H.R. 1030 would not require EPA to disseminate any scientific or technical information that it relies on to support covered actions, the bill would not prohibit EPA from doing so. Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that EPA would spend $250 million annually over the next few years to ensure the transparency of information and data supporting some covered actions.”
==============
The country is already ~20 trillion dollars in debt, do they think another 250 million is gonna burn out the printing press or what ?
Sheesh.

I don’t understand what costs money here. Just make your data available. I could make all my business data and research publicly available in about 10 minutes with a few clicks. And we have a lot of it.

Let’s see now.
Unless the US really has a scifi-type “climate control” weapon (that it is, according to the alarmist, aiming at itself) then there are zero national security secrets involved.
I really doubt that the AGU or Penn State “SkunkWorks” has designed an SR-98 as a replacement for for the SR-71 that can be armed with a “Climate Control Pod”.
Obama claimed something along the lines that CaGW was the US’s greatest National Security Threat. That implies that the US is NOT in control of the climate.
How could making the data behind “climate change”, or any other USEPA regulations, publicly available for scrutiny a bad thing?
Some of the “public” might have a last name beginning with “M”? They might “find something wrong”?

Here, let me help fix the AGU’s letter to Administrator Pruitt.
“… has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude secret and or undisclosed data vital to informed decision-making..”

That is really what this is about. It will make it legally difficult for future EPA directors to justify reversing the policy of going back to using hidden, undisclosed data to arrive at a politically desired rule. And by “legally difficult” I mean via inevitable court challenges to rules using the Democrat’s secret science in policy making.

And this letter from AGU, coinciding with the AAAS open letter, and jointly written letter by Science, Nature, PNAS, PLOS, and Cell editors… all has the coordination fingerprint of Ceres.org. The Liberal’s Deep money at work. Corruption at work.

The reason that Ceres will never produce an Effectiveness Report is that the true nature of what Ceres deems “effective” is quite different from its publicly stated mission. An Effectiveness Report is a public document that can be scrutinized by outsiders (their political opponents who know what they really do) for inconsistencies.

Thus CERES can not admit to “an appraisal be done assessing the organization’s performance and effectiveness and determining future actions required to achieve its mission.”

CERES.org does list its Investor Network, which different from a donor. A donor gves money without strings.
An investor wants a return, something for their money. What they do is help ensure governments continue to fund renewable energy with tax credits and rebates. The Green’s Climate Hustle.

It’s a veritable Who’s Who in the neo-Marxist Movement and where the corruption exists in Blue States.

A partial list:AFL-CIOAmerican Fed of State, County and Municipal EmployeesBlackRock, Inc.California Public Employees’ Retirement SystemCalifornia State Controller’s Office
California State Teachers’ Retirement System
California State Treasurer’s OfficeConnecticut Office of the State TreasurerEast Bay Municipal Utility District Retirement SystemFlorida State Board of Administration
Illinois State TreasurerInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Pension FundLaborers’ International Union of North AmericaMaine Public Employee Retirement SystemMaryland State Retirement and Pension System
Maryland Treasurer’s Office
Massachusetts Office of the State TreasurerMinnesota State Board of InvestmentMontgomery County Employees’ Retirement SystemNew Mexico State Treasurer’s Office
New York City Employees’ Retirement System
New York City Office of the Comptroller
New York State Comptroller
New York State Teachers’ Retirement SystemOregon Office of the State TreasurerPennsylvania Treasury DepartmentRhode Island Office of the General Treasurer
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Capital Management
San Francisco Employees’ Retirement SystemSeattle City Employees’ Retirement SystemService Employees International UnionThe Sierra Club FoundationUAW Retiree Medical Benefits TrustUnited Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund
University of California
University of WashingtonVermont Office of the State TreasurerWashington State Investment Board
Washington State Treasurer

I think Pruitt should take it a step further, and re-consider all regulations previously enacted by the EPA. Disclose ALL science underlying the decision to enact such regulations. Data/methods not disclosed or available? Rescind the regulation. And if it is available, make it public, and anything that doesn’t pass muster upon examination after that should similarly result in the associated regulations being rescinded.

Make all the related communications public as well, so we can all see the background collusions, corruption and cronyism involved. Transparency NOW!

Oh please. Pruitt is the most corrupt head of the EPA in decades. Sweetheart deals with lobbyists to buy expensive houses in Oklahoma at below market prices? Renting a condo in the best part of DC for $50/night from a lobbyist? Get a clue, that’s the very definition of corruption.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually.

The writer must figure that nobody is going to follow the link for footnote 4. In that reference, at least, the CBO says no such thing:

Although H.R. 1030 would not require EPA to disseminate any scientific or technical information that it relies on to support covered actions, the bill would not prohibit EPA from doing so. Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that EPA would spend $250 million annually over the next few years to ensure the transparency of information and data supporting some covered actions.

There is no reference here to five million dollars. And the CBO says that the annual $250 million is based on information from EPA. What exactly what does that mean? Sounds like the CBO is simply reporting EPA propaganda, rather than making their own evaluation.

OK, a little more light here. One needs to click on the button at the top of the writer’s link to pull down the full document, which does indeed authorize up to a million dollars in redirected funding.

And then read the whole section, “Basis of Estimate,” wherein the CBO essentially tosses the whole thing back into the hands of the EPA:

The costs of implementing H.R. 1030 are uncertain because it is not clear how EPA would meet the bill’s requirements…If EPA continued to rely on as many scientific studies as it has used in recent years, while increasing the collection and dissemination of all the technical information
used in such studies as directed by H.R. 1030, then implementing the bill would cost at least several hundred million dollars a year. However, EPA could instead rely on significantly fewer studies each year in support of its mission, and limit its spending on data collection and database
construction activities to a relatively small expansion of existing study-related activity; in that scenario, implementing the bill would be much less costly.

Thus, the costs of implementing H.R. 1030 would ultimately depend on how EPA adapts to the bill’s requirements.
(my bold)

“If EPA continued to rely on as many scientific studies as it has used in recent years, while increasing the collection and dissemination of all the technical information used in such studies as directed by H.R. 1030, then implementing the bill would cost at least several hundred million dollars a year.”

I don’t understand why the EPA needs to ‘increasing the collection and dissemination of all the technical information used in such studies’. The authors of the studies publish their studies and would be required to make their technical information available to everyone.

Even at an annual coat of $250 million/year, the cost/benefit analysis of HONEST Act1 seems quite promising, when you consider:
1) eliminating the time and labor cost of unreproducible junk science consuming EPA staff resources,
2) eliminating the huge EPA costs of implementing and monitoring compliance for erroneous regulations based on unreproducible junk science,
3) eliminating the overwhelming costs forced on companies and consumers to meet and comply with junk regulations based on unreproducible junk science,
4) the positive effects of sharply reducing the funding sources for unreproducible junk science because the funding agencies will know with certainty that their politically motivated junk science will not be considered by the EPA.
5) the very positive effects of restoring honesty and integrity to science evaluation processes and ‘rule making’ processes at the EPA,
6) the renewed self-respect that every honest scientist will realize as the festering putrification of unreproducible junk science is lanced and drained from the feverous Body of Climate Science.

Ricdre The ministry of war already has had its Orwellian name change. That was when the department was renamed defence in adjunct with ever increasing self appointed assault abroad justified as ‘police action.’ Now about that increasing of militarization of domestic policing….which worked so well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc., etc. The FBI has been using COIN for decades BTW
You have to figure corporations lobbying the regulation easement granting structure prefer their bullshit not be referred to in plainly understandable terms.

It would be nice to know how many of the 60K members of AGU actually approved of this letter. I will bet at the most it was solely the board’s idea. Yet I think McEntee is letting the cat out of the bag. If we, the evil public, had access to all the data EPA technocrats have used then it might just be possible to demonstrate just how wrong they are. It also might mean we would find out just how bad the data really is and therefore how incompetent the people that have collected the data really are. Of course they also may be trying to protect the unknown, in other words the data doesn’t actually exist which EPA has used to make policies and regulations.

According to Kristi, only trained and certified “climate scientists” can properly understand this data.
Anyone else who sees it might draw the wrong conclusion based on their lack of proper conditioning. And this would be dangerous.

They will have to own up to the fact that much of the “science” is not physical. It is simply outputs from models. They will have to justify why their projections have been so wrong for the last 20+ years.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA….

The “policy” is the Secret Science Reform Act*, i.e. a policy to end secret science!

The legislation this policy is based on, the HONEST Act**, has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.

Here’s what The American Chemistry Council (ACC) had to say about the “Honest Act’:

We are pleased the House today passed H.R. 1430, the HONEST Act; Chairman Smith is to be commended for his leadership and commitment to improve EPA science. It is critical that the regulated community and the public have confidence that decisions reached by EPA are grounded in transparent and reproducible science, while ensuring the protection of confidential business information and competitive intelligence. By ensuring that the EPA utilizes high quality science and shares underlying data used to reach decisions, the HONEST Act would foster a regulatory environment that will allow the U.S. business of chemistry to continue to develop safe, innovative products that Americans depend on in their everyday lives.

“We urge the Senate to take up the bill and are committed to working with Congress to advance legislation to increase transparency and strengthen public confidence in EPA’s scientific analyses and Agency decision making.”

“AGU is fully committed and would be willing to provide assistance to efforts to ensure that scientific information is communicated openly with policymakers and the public. However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information.”

One wonders where the AGU has been for the past couple of decades as the peer review process has been sacrificed on the alter of politics?

From replication issues to lack of data access even AFTER papers are accepted for publication and further, to obstruction by conspiracy to prevent anyone with alternate opinions being able to test the results and/or conclusions, environment and climate fields have become a joke,

Using peer review as a weapon is also a main tactic – it’s right handy to challenge “where’s you peer review” when you control the PR process so that alternate views cannot be published.

“The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually.”

Prior to 1950s ( the golden age of Physics ) papers were published and they had to withstand public scrutiny not a closed private review. Einstein submiitted his Special Theory of Relativity to Max Planck who encourage him to submit his paper to the general Physics community for review. Peer Review is often used to prevent ideas from seeing the light of day.

I used to grade papers on material I knew less about.
(1) Note the lack of peer reviewed footnotes despite their insistence on such.
(2) Obviously confusion of consensus with analysis.
(3)( “…. has received significant opposition from the scientific community… ”) is based on a AAAS letter listing about a dozen universities and 20 societies, none from marine science.
(4) Said letter is erroneous about research on oil pollution –(“Rather these studies are replicated utilizing statistical modeling. The same may be true for scientific data from a one-time event (e.g., Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill) where the data are gathered in real time.”) Oil pollution studies predate WWII, replicated in many cases including some funded by the industry and government.
(5) Such alleged scientific certainty exists in very few cases, certainly not properly referenced in the letter.

And other as elaborated above. If this was a freshman or sophomore course, a D, junior or senior an F, graduate student told to find another curriculum. Of course, this was back in the day when students got flunked.

So would I. And I think ANY scientist should be embarrassed that such a letter should come from a “science” society. Time for real scientists to begin expressing their disgust at this kind of politically motivated BS.

If you are a member of AGU and you disagree with this advocating against open data and verifiable science, then you should terminate your membership ASAP. Your name is being sullied. It’s sad that almost all academic groups have devolved into nothing more than a socialist circle jerk.

“AGU stands with the scientific community6 regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time.”

Fine then make it public as it grows and those paying for the collection of it expect the timely raw data not the homogenised, pasteurised version much later thanks. You collect it, you have it and then you publish it on the net and carry on analysing it. What’s so hard about that?

EPA before Pruitt, acted on bad information on engineering and geology, Flint, tested illegally on humans with possibly lethal experiments on those they exploited that were willing to undergo such experiments for 12 bucks an hour.

Science and bureaucracy are a TERRIBLE mix even if you don’t mention the inherent echo chamberism at the EPA from years of recruiting only like minded people.

Ideologically inbred thoughts lead to retarded ideas, retarded in actual meaning of the word, not the slang meaning

Well I am confused, so I try to translate that letter for myself, I need some help with newspeek… Do I correctly understand they want the: ‘trust us, we are scientists and we say so’ instead of the: ‘here is the data, you can check yourself’?

“The legislation this policy is based on, the HONEST Act1, has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.2”
‘exclude data’? What data is excluded? Was it not about making it available? Was it not about basing decisions only on studies with publicly available data?
So they mean exclude results based on ‘trust us’ data? Hm?

“AGU is fully committed and would be willing to provide assistance to efforts to ensure that scientific information is communicated openly with policymakers and the public.”
Good, they do not say anything directly against making the data available, as this should be the basis of any scientific work.

“However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. “
However? What however? Make the data available.
How is the peer review process impeded when the data has to be made available? Is it that anybody could judge the process not only the peers? Or what else could be the problem?

“Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information.”
Yeah, still where is the problem to make the data available? Yes you want the peer review process, and the data? Give us the data, make it available to the public for public decisions. What the heck?

“The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually”
What secret policy? It is out in the open?
Would cost? Whom would it cost? The taxpayers? It does not seem to be the case?
Do they mean there are between 5 to 250 million annually money grants for studies where the data is secret? Do they really mean it would cost ‘the scientists’ so much money they do not receive? Or what? How can it cost them if they do not pay it?

“Of additional concern to AGU are reports that EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change “
Oh! It is about climate change?

“… talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world.5 The reported guidance requires EPA employees to emphasize that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.””
Oh, it is about the climate change consensus, the settled science and the flow of grant money…

“AGU stands with the scientific community6 regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time. “
Yeah, make that data publicly available and base policies only on studies with publicly available data. What the heck?

YES
Lars your last point :
“Yeah, make that data publicly available and base policies only on studies with publicly available data.”
YES ! AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE IN “STRAIGHT-FORWARD-LANGUAGE” so that everyone can
understand it……………..ESPECIALLY as KRISTI has pointed out to us ….. THAT EVEN THE SCIENTISTS
CAN’T UNDERSTAND ONE ANOTHER’S RESEARCH !
WOW ! Such OPACITY ! Such SECRECY !
WELL DONE MR PRUITT.

You missed the most important point. Peer reviewers who pass a paper may very well be upstaged by some deplorable person out in the great mass of unwashed people who discover errors in the published paper.

Who would want to be a reviewer in that situation. This whole thing is more about retaining a publishing empire with pal reviewers than getting correct information into the world.

Early in my career I worked for a pathologist. He used a lot of physician’s axioms. This one has so much rich meaning for health of both the body and for management of complex organizations: obstruction begets infection.

Whenever a person can obstruct lines of reporting and thereby obstruct transparency of their activities it becomes easy for their performance to become more about private goals rather than the public goals of the organization.

Of any government agency, the EPA has succeeded in obstruction of oversight and is full of employees who are motivated by their ow self-righteous policy goals. Anytime data that is used to justify policy (having the weight of law) or procedures used to analyze such data, is kept private only bad things happen. The first casualty is public support for the rule of law, especially when officials can make gross mistakes with impunity. Laws and sound scientific research are only for the little people.

This is clearly anti science. How can the science be independnently tested, the first test of any science that claims validity? Science that does not offer proof of its predictions is a religion, it’s scientists priests.

The sky is falling, the Messiah is coming, the end of the world is nigh, at a time well beyond that you have to pay up to save the world.

There s no data thats make any of this probable fact in terms of correlation of supposed causes and the absolute level of change versus known global patterns. The assertion is false,

It is a greater give away that the laws enacted by the state on the basis of this secretive religion for the profit of easy profit of renewable energy lobbyists and the careers of people like this high preist must make the supposed problems expensively worse in physics 101 as costed engineering fact.

Christine McEnte is clearly NOT a scientist, as she doesn’t understand the most fundamental test of scientific method, Independnent validation. Mann’ish religious science is good enough. Because they say so, it’s true, so you must believe the problem is real and caused as we guess, and pay for the snake oil we sell as a cure.No thanks.

AS far as the snake oil of renewable energy subsidies, this is actual provable malfeasance in science fact, and the people should sue their government for it. The measures amke CO2 emissions expensively worse by law, unsustainably.

Promoting laws that cannot deliver their promise of preventing an exagerated effect in science fact, based on increasingly unravelling predictions of a very unproven and ultimately unprovable prediction (the basis of religion) , using wholly inadequate models that apply presumptive science rather than test the real possibilities even handedly, that then clearly fails to predict what happens in the natural world but is still preferred by the priests,, so we must spend more on it, is obviously broken, is at the civilisation level of the Moche pyramids. Building more will not change the change, they had to move elsewhere, as will we as the ice comes. Building renewables has no usefu effect on actual climate change, or even CO2 levels come to that, versus gas and nuclear which works, but has no easy “climate change” subidisies.

We face a state run climate change protection racket, supported by the false prophets of the EPA, not behaving as scientists even if they were trained that way. Supporting proven science denying laws that enrich insiders at public expense to the profit of the priests and their paymasters. laws that charge us to counter a threat re CO2 the EPA can never prove, because it isn’t real as advertised, by enforcing subsidised solutions that cannot deliver the improvements claimed on the science fact, and instead making the problems of energy expensively worse than preferring the unsubsidised and superior alternatives.

No wonder the EPA priesthood are worried, someone with power wants to make them prove their consensus “science”, and explain why it doesn’t represent nature, and inded exludes nature it would rather pretend CO2 was responsible for. When it increasingly obviosuly isn’t in science fact.

Tell the people who pay us the truth? Surely not. How rude. Can’t tell the people the truth, or the whole climate science scam collapses, and exposes the corruption behind it, both Intellectual and fiscal. Time to run these deceitful charlatans out of Washington, and anywhere else they have been given power by the state. Have an EPA, but replace the charlatans with real scientists without agendas, and ensure external peer review and independent validation of ALL their science is possible, if not always enacted…

How in the hell is this swamp thing leading AGU? A freaking background in nursing and crony management, this is disgraceful for AGU. Not a single thing she states should be supported by the geological community, and she should be roundly fired from her post, immediately!

…..However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information…..

Here in the UK Poundland is a chain offering cheap commercial products as the name implies for a Pound.
these products are bought from suppliers who still have to go through a reasonable Quality assurance program for the products.
Peer review passes data used by the climate scientists which Poundland would find totally unacceptable as inadequately tested against reference instruments in an environment that is totally uncontrolled.

Given the claims for the importance of climate legislation I feel that life critical QA standards should be applied not mere commercial ones.

The EPA letter reminds me of a high-school sophomore’s letter to the Principal — complaining about new scholastic requirements (like actually learning to read and write) and then collapsing into a further complaint about the dress code and the ugly ties the Principal insists on wearing.
Remarkable childish.

Follow the money. Would you want to be a reviewer passing on a paper when you could be proven stupid by someone out in WUWT land? What do you think will happen with the publishing empires? I can foresee peer review organizations becoming much, much smaller even though they may become better. Smaller -> less money!

Under eight years of Democrats the EPA became a lobbyist playground . Lobbyist’s in favor
got paid to write EPA policy while keeping their hands in the tax payer cookie jar .
Scott Pruitt is bound to offend those who have been cut off the gravy train . And the loss of those
parties too . Very upsetting .

“AGU stands with the scientific community6 regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time”

Ok, so if the data is so strong and growing all the time, then there should be no problem releasing it for public scrutiny. However, if the data isn’t as strong or as growing as the “trust us” crowd claims that I can see why they’d want to keep it hidden (like the infamous decline). The light of public scrutiny is the bane of charlatans everywhere.

“…implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA”
///////////////////////////////////////

Huh? They are getting rid of the secret science. I’m confused.

///////////////////////////////////////
‘The reported guidance requires EPA employees to emphasize that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”’
///////////////////////////////////////

Ms. McEntee has expressed her concern “that the EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world. The reported guidance requires EPA employees to emphasize that clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.” And what is wrong with this policy?

Anyone who claims climate science is settled is living in a fantasy world. For the health and well-being of the people, they need to know the whole story, not only the part that advances the social and financial interests of researchers and special interests. The guidance of the EPA is spot on and a significant improvement over the censored version of the truth promoted by previous EPA management.

Over 100 climate models been unable to model long-term climate adequately to guide environmental policy for over 30 years. The models cannot be tested within the lifetimes of the researchers. Laboratory measurements have not been used to understand atmospheric aerosol production, which is thought to significantly affect offset warming attributed to greenhouse-gas emissions.

Current climate models are fundamentally based on classical physics, which is possibly the wrong physics. Some physicists assert that the right physics is quantum physics, which suggests CO2 in not an important factor in climate change. CO2 is only a “pollutant” because the previous EPA management declared it to be a “pollutant.” It sounds like a “means justify the ends policy.”

A correct probability analysis of the earth temperature in 2100 should include a complete probability curve, not just the estimated high value but a high value, a low value and all values in between. The distribution now can only be described by a rectangular distribution, all values within a range are equally likely. Until that range can be reduced sufficiently through more studies to be small enough that climate mitigation efforts for both ends of the distribution are compatible, that is, they are not designed to simultaneously remove CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce temperatures and to add carbon soot to the polar ice caps to increase temperatures. Until researchers develop a better understanding of climate change, the best policy is for policymakers to do nothing about climate change.

These are just three of many examples that illustrate climate change is not settled. The EPA guidelines are a welcome, rational approach that should be embraced regardless of who is in charge. It would be nice to see similar changes in AGU publications.

Ms. McEntee’s objections to an alleged EPA plan to use only public data in rule-making are not clear. What’s the problem? She also mentions a “secret” science policy proposed by the EPA to allegedly cost somewhere between one million dollars per year and 250 million dollars per year. I am completely confused. Is 250 million dollars too low? How would these numbers compare to past years numbers and results? She might be embarrassed to make that comparison.

Hey Christine the car industry opened up ABS and ESC technology to the world for free!!
Why?
Ah because it was in the best interests of all so don’t pull this secret carp with me.
I assume you have got a reply in the offing to Judith Curry’s et al recent paper???, but I don’t expect you to descend to answering Monckton’s et al although that paper appears to be quite worthy of “peer” review as well. It even has a bit of scientific method thrown in

So, if this stuffed lab coat wants to drive policy, run for office and hit the streets to press the flesh and kiss babies. The last time I read the Declaration of Independance, just last week, the founding fathers rejected taxation without representation. But right in our neighborhood the EPA drives the growth of imposed fees and the head person drives the EPA, which is yet one of many departments that in reality are just another form of taxation without representation on our own soil. And we don’t get to vote in these people. So already we are half way to taxation without representation. To cowtow to scientists in its entirety, gets us to the “we are finished” line.

“McEntee graduated from Georgetown University and holds a Masters in Health Administration-Health Policy from George Washington University. She serves on the board of numerous groups, including the MedStar Health Research Institute, where she serves as Chair, the American Board of Ophthalmology and the American Board of Medical Specialists Health Policy Committee, and she has served as a member of the ASAE Awards Committee and Innovation Task Force.”
( I copied it from here https://sites.agu.org/leadership/leader/christine-w-mcentee/ Read it! It’s amazing how little geo-physical science her bio contains.)

Given the above background, it seems unlikely that this CEO of the AGU is well-versed in any particular science – let alone the ethics and philosophy of science. (She is more ‘CEO’ than ‘scientist’ – how did the AGU let this happen?) And given the screwed-up arguments of her letter, she seems to even more clueless about logic than she is about science.

I have read with considerable dismay your letter to the Scott Pruitt dated April 23, 2018. I am particularly concerned with your promoting peer review as a “gold standard”; while defending secret data and methods as if they can somehow be scientific.

I admit, I have seen publications, claiming to be scientific journal articles, in which the data was not available and/or the methods by which is was handled are not apparent. These are by their very nature not reproducible and therefore are not science by any normal definition. The purpose of publication is supposed to be to spread knowledge and advance understanding. Articles that hide methods, data or calculations fail this fundamental test and should not be published.

If a researcher feels that publishing their methods will negatively affect them financially then the answer is obvious. As every private sector researcher knows… You don’t publish that research.

In any event your claim regarding peer review is what is most upsetting. How can a paper that withholds data, observations, or calculations, the only thing a peer reviewer can check, pass peer review? I would put it to you that any reviewer who passes a paper that lacks the information to make it reproducible should be removed permanently from the reviewer list as they have by this action proved themselves incompetent. The only thing they could possibly be approving in this instance is that a paper corresponds to their own prejudices.

I am not one of the “60,000 scientist members” of the AGU. I do know that if I was I would find the obvious misunderstanding of the basics of the scientific method, suggested in your letter, to be very embarrassing.